by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, December 28, 2007
In January of this year, Nancy Pelosi took the gavel as the first woman Speaker of the House after a congressional election that shifted the balance of power to the Democrats’ favor. In a gesture that even President Bush admitted was a “thumpin’” of Republicans, the nation sent a powerful message to our leadership that it was time for change. So, in January, I had hopes that 2007 would bring greater protection of civil liberties, a swing of focus away from the whims of corporate lobbyists and toward the needs of hard working American citizens; and a Congress that would hold this administration accountable for its shameful conduct.
Nearly a year later, we are still pouring billions of dollars into Bush’s unjust war of choice to appease a power-hungry president who finally learned to use his veto pen (if only to deny healthcare to millions of poor children).
I was further disheartened the other day when I listened to an interview of John Conyers, the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, which is charged with overseeing impeachment proceedings among other oversight responsibilities. When asked why impeachment of Vice President Cheney and President Bush was not being pursued while recent polls show a growing impeachment support among constituents, Conyers’s response was a dance of avoidance that boiled down to the admission that political fallout and the backlash certain to brew on the Fox News Network trumped the pursuit of truth that would reveal the administration’s crimes and misdemeanors.
With the administration going about business as usual, virtually unchecked by congressional oversight, and the Senate and the House cowering in the face of pressure from the neo-con media, it’s little wonder that approval ratings for Congress are even lower than Bush’s dismal numbers.
The problem isn’t that every Democrat in Congress is spineless. There is still Senator Kennedy calling for an end to the perpetual blank check that the president has enjoyed for most of his term of office. There are still Rep. Robert Wexler and others pushing for investigations into Cheney’s wrongdoings. However, there is a lack of will in the Congress to perform its obligatory duty to hold accountable the Executive.
Looking ahead to 2008, it is difficult to make accurate predictions in the current state of our nation. In the past, I would have confidently predicted that on November 5, 2008, G. W. Bush will be a real lame duck. However, since the Help America Vote Act plunged much of the nation into ballot uncertainty, it is conceivable that Bush could be voted into a third term. Fortunately, the Constitution still prevents such a travesty.
Hopefully, in January of 2009 we will have a leader who can string together a coherent sentence and actually pronounce terms of importance like “nuclear” proliferation and the names of the prisons where we torture and abuse inmates in the tradition of the tyrannical madmen we depose.
With the Democratic and Republican primaries yet to kick off, it is impossible to tell who will be each party’s nominee for that position. Opinion polls award top spots to different candidates each week so it’s anybody’s guess at this point.
Whoever comes out victorious on November 4 will inherit the legacy of one of the worst presidents in our nation’s history. They will be stuck with a lagging economy and the leftovers of Bush’s aggressive Middle East strategy. Our troops will still be dying in Iraq. Our presence there and in Afghanistan will still be a source of instability among Arab neighbors. War profiteering will still be a stain on our reputation and the conduct of U.S. contractors a humiliating reminder of our skewed priorities.
The next president will also inherit an unprecedented amount of executive power. The current administration has brought about a frightening shift in the balance of powers in our government. Wielding fear and patriotism, Bush and Cheney have sought again and again to limit congressional oversight, obstruct the judicial system and strengthen the power of the executive branch. The change in tone in Washington is chilling and it has produced an executive seat that enjoys considerable leeway and power.
No matter which party claims the allegiance of the next president, we, as citizen, must be ever vigilant. The vote we cast is only a minute part of our obligation as citizens in this democracy. We must be proactive in our democratic duties and not abdicate our responsibilities.
The year 2008 may or may not be of historical importance, but it certainly will mark the beginning of a new era. What kind of America can we expect going forward?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Keith,
I am surprised to read that our noble leaders in the most powerful governmental body in the world are so terribly afraid of one news channel when they have 'polls showing a growing impeachment support among their constituents'-- to whom are they accountable, and why should they fear Fox News - if they had truth and evidence on their side?
Furthermore, to continually claim this conflict is 'Bush's war of choice' is getting a little old and regardless of how many times it is repeated, the fact is that the congressional leaders and a coalition of other world leaders agreed to hold Saddam accountable for his actions when he defied UN resolutions.
Also, could you please define 'neo-con media' and give me the names and outlets of those media henchmen who have our aforementioned fearless leaders cowering in their closets? Just a quick suggestion-- perhaps it is time for those leaders to take Cheney's advice and 'grow a pair'!
Your thoughts?
Gordon,
The interview I was speaking about can be found here: Democracy Now. I'm appalled, actually, that those in Congress would cow to Fox news or any other organization. They should be accountable to their constituency. I completely agree that they are charged by constitutional obligation to provide oversight and account. I think if a message was sent to Congress in any form by the citizenry of this nation, those leaders are sworn to heed it. I can't explain why they would refuse.
Regarding the words "war of choice," those are, in a sense, Bush's own. He declared in several speeches and press conferences that he was a "War President" and that he was the decider, in the context of the war in Iraq. Now, of course, there were others involved. Perhaps I should change the ownership and call it Cheney's war of choice. The fact is that it is known that Iraq was a done deal (even the Bush-sympathetic Bob Woodward documents that months before the final ultimatum the wheels of war were irrevocably in play), and that the intelligence was being framed around the policy of invasion. This is documented. Yes, pressure was brought to bear by the United States against Congress and against the U.N. Yes, we strong armed allies into conformity. Yes, Britain signed on whole-heartedly (at the governmental level -- not a decision of the people, who were largely opposed) as the little brother in some Outsiders-esque rumble. But we drove the policy to attack Iraq. We would have done it, regardless of Iraqi cooperation or compliance to U.N. Resolutions. Those are the facts and you can dispute them if you'd like, but it's still the truth.
Neo-con media: Obviously FOX and the talk radio gang. You know who they are. Conyers said in his interview that it wasn't just Fox news he had to worry about, there would be others. That was what I was referring to. I believe it is getting increasingly hard for you to make the argument that the MSM is liberal. I bet in the major networks in a given I can find at least one story biased toward the conservative base for every liberal one you can find. And I think the same goes for other outlets as well. I think the only way to access objective reporting is to weigh varied sources. Double-check everything. I listen to a few liberal radio talk shows, but I check everything that sounds too shocking to be true against other sources which don't lean to the left. It's the only way. One on the conservative side should look beyond Rush and Fox and double-check as well.
Keith, I read the interview and i was struck by one remarkable aspect. The fact that Conyers mentioned 'the3 feasibility' and the possible lack of potential success would indicate that the impeachment would fail because of lack of credible charges. Perhaps the whole movement has been exposed as more of a whiney, angry response to the loss of power rather than a legitimate desire for truth and justice. My recollection of the same congressman during the LEGITIMATE impeachment proceedings against a president who obstructed justice and committed perjury (Proven) seems to be that they were not all that concerned about the sanctity of law and order then either.
My point is that if we are concerned about the rule of law and if the evidence is there that laws have been broken, then ignore the press and pursue the right direction.
Regarding the war -- I am amused by your designation of Bob 'watergate' Woodward as a Bush-sympathizer -- I'm sure he would laugh at that as well.
Anyway, I think it will be regarded as the right war at the right time when the proper historical perspective is applied. I do not see it as a failure, and I think if Al Gore would have been 'the decider' (Oh, if he had only won Tennessee!) the current detractors would be singing a different tune as well. I believe that this conflict has exposed the partisan element more than any other event in our history. While differences between the parties is a healthy part of our American heritage, I think the current crop of petty politicians as opposed to real statesmen is a disgrace. Even you have to admit that the aforementioned interview demonstrates their obeisance to political survival above the health of our nation.
G
Gordon,
I think historical perspective is important in the case of the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, there is little interest in historical context among Americans these days.
I would look to the pre-W years to help frame the debate about the motivation behind our invasion. In 1997 a neocon think tank called Project for The New American Century (PNAC) published a document called Rebuilding America's Defenses. The charter members (men like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, William Kristol and others), frustrated with the military cuts of the Clinton era, sought to expand U.S. military might and transform the already dominant world superpower into a super-superpower.
This document is frightening many ways, such as the way it outlines the preemptive war strategy that has been adopted as our current foreign policy and its seemingly imperialist goals. The other frightening part of the document is the mention of the lack of public support that these new programs might suffer. This is most frightening because of a single paragraph that indicates that a catalyst in the form of a national tragedy ( a new Pearl Harbor) would be necessary to overcome public resistance.
We all know that 9/11 did provide such a catalyst and that without 9/11 most of the Bush policies that closely resemble the blueprint provided by PNAC would not have been possible. The gradual chipping away of civil right, the way the case was built against Iraq to capitalize on the fear and rage Americans felt in the aftermath of 9/11, the saber-rattling over Iran.
I believe Iraq was planned all along as an easily achievable military victory. This experiment would help to reinforce the new military strategy as PNAC theorized. Unfortunately, taking over small countries requires a substantial amount of nation building (or rebuilding).
There are a couple of reasonings for this motivation. The best case would be that establishing undeniable military dominance would increase security and make us safer. The worst case is that all of this was about lining the purses of military contractors and corporations. In any case, the administration capitalized on 9/11 to push through an agenda.
Post a Comment